Hur skall ett balanserat och proportionerligt svar från Israel se ut när de dagligen beksjuts med raketer? Frågan har varit aktuell de senaste dagarna och vad än Israel gör möts de av kritik från omvärlden.
Per Gudmundson skriver den 27.2 på SvD ledarbloggen: "Borde Israel klippa de enskilda Hamas-ledare som beordrar attackerna? EU-parlamentet antog i förra veckan en resolution som fördömer det riktade dödandet. Borde Israel använda strikt ekonomiska sanktioner för att straffa Hamas för kassamraketerna? Samma resolution fördömde vad den beskrev som kollektiv bestraffning av palestinier. Borde Israel försöka slå ut kassamraketerna genom begränsade militära räder? Dessa ger också den oförlåtliga bieffekten att många palestinska offer skulle krävas, vilka sägs vara oproportionerliga i förhållande till antalet israeler som skadats av kassamraketerna."
Bret Stephens i Wall Street Journal skriver om samma ämne:"The more vexing question, both morally and strategically, is what Israel ought to do about Gaza. The standard answer is that Israel's response to the Kassams ought to be "proportionate." What does that mean? Does the "proportion" apply to the intention of those firing the Kassams -- to wit, indiscriminate terror against civilian populations? In that case, a "proportionate" Israeli response would involve, perhaps, firing 2,500 artillery shells at random against civilian targets in Gaza."
FN och EU anklagar Israel för att deras åtgärder mot Gaza inte är proportionerliga, att Israel använder för mycket våld. Men i jämförelse med vilken annan konflikt som helst ser man att Israel i verkligheten är återhållsam. Till och med i Europas senaste krig bombade Nato civila mål i Serbien i en omfattning som ingen tydligen mera vill komma ihåg (flyktingkonvojer,kinesiska ambassaden osv)
Idag antog FN:s mänskorättsråd igen en resolution som fördömde Israels senaste offensiv i Gaza och anklagade Israel för krigsförbrytelser. De muslimska länderna röstade igenom resolutionen stödda av Kina,Ryssland och Indien. Canada röstade emot och EU länderna avstod som vanligt.
Den som är intresserad av vad internationell lag säger om situationer lik den i Gaza och hur Israel ser på frågan kan läsa en rapport från israeliska utrikesministeriet här.
Här nedanför två utdrag ur rapporten:
Main Points:
Israel is in a conflict not of its own making – indeed it withdrew every Israeli soldier and all 9000 Israeli civilians from the Gaza Strip in its 2005 disengagement initiative. But it is forced to act in self-defense to protect itself from deliberate missile attacks on its civilians by the Hamas terrorist organization.
Although Hamas makes no effort to comply with international law, Israel is committed to limiting itself to a lawful response. This means that, while Hamas uses civilians both as a shield and a target, Israel seeks to limit injury to civilians on both sides.
International law recognizes that civilian deaths and injuries may occur in lawful military operations. For an operation to be lawful it must be directed at a "legitimate military objective" and be "proportionate".
Under the Geneva Conventions, if a military objective, such as a missile launcher or weapons stockpile, is placed in the heart of a civilian area, it does not cease being a lawful military objective. The responsibility for civilian causalities arising from the 'shielding' lies with the party that deliberately placed civilians at risk.
International law also requires that any military operation be 'proportionate' to the military advantage anticipated. In making this assessment, proportionality is to be measured not against any single specific attack, but in the light of the overall threat being faced. This is a complex and difficult calculation and international law relies on the best determination of the commander in the field in the heat of the conflict.
Israel has adopted these principles of the law of armed conflict, both in its military training and in practice. Frequently, proposed operations are cancelled because the risk of injury to civilians might not be proportional to the military goals of the operation.
A survey of international practice suggests that the steps taken by Israel, and its approach to proportionality, correspond to, or are more stringent than, those taken by most western countries confronting similar threats.
Conclusion
The current military operation in Gaza is taking place against a clear asymmetry with regard to the implementation of principles of international humanitarian law: Hamas, in clear violation of these principles, deliberately targets Israeli civilians, and does so while placing its bases and stockpiles in the heart of civilian centers. Israel, on the other hand, seeks to apply the principles of humanitarian law, even against an opponent which flouts them. As Israel's Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed, in reviewing the lawfulness of Israel's responses to terrorism:
This is the destiny of democracy, as not all means are acceptable to it and not all practices employed by its enemies are open before it. Although a democracy must often fight with one hand tied behind its back, it nonetheless has the upper hand .
(HCJ 5100/94)
Accordingly, Israel takes pains to ensure that it directs its attacks against legitimate military targets, and that in conducting its operations incidental injury to civilians is kept to a minimum. A survey of international practice suggests that the steps taken by Israel, and its approach to proportionality, correspond to, or are more stringent than, those taken by most western countries confronting similar threats.
The suffering of civilians on both sides of this conflict is tragic. Israel is making strenuous efforts to reduce this toll, both by protecting Israeli civilians and seeking to minimize injury to civilians within the Gaza Strip. Israel's efforts in this regard should not, however, diminish the ultimate responsibility of those who callously and deliberately use the civilian population as a shield for the injury that inevitably results from their actions.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar